Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[TheClimateChanger]

On 10/11/2024 at 2:43 PM, TheClimateChanger said:

We can also see any temperature records that show the 1980s and 1990s as cold are gaslighting us. The 1980s were very warm, as noted in the article. The 1990s were considered to be the warmest decade on record.

And so much misinformation. They want us to "trust the experts" and the so-called experts were used to gaslight us with non sequiturs. "The question you have to ask yourself is, if this was the third warmest year in Pittsburgh, what happened to cause the other two" and "[t]he relationship between global warming and temperatures at any particular location is not very strong." Absolute rubbish from someone who should have known better even in that era.

The funny thing is there are people here who think it's a government conspiracy or hoax, as if the U.S. government didn't spend decades gaslighting us and ignoring reality. 

Here is an example. Paul Callahan [@ChescoWx] questions Roger Coppock as to why he begins his analysis in 1980? Obviously, this is complete and utter nonsense. That's when the first satellites carrying MSUs were launched into orbit. But the implication is this is a cherrypicked start date and that the warming trend is amplified because it starts at a cool period. GASLIGHT CITY!

The 1980s were a very warm decade overall [read the article I posted above, and THINK!!!!] and the 1990s were considered to be the warmest decade on record - and by a fair margin. Many so-called experts insisted the 1990s and early 2000s were the peak or zenith of a long-term, but cyclical, warming trend, and that temperatures thereafter would fall. In fact, temperatures have risen at a greater rate than ever before since 2010. Not only have these so-called experts been wrong, they have been DEAD WRONG. 

 

[TheClimateChanger]

48 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Here is an example. Paul Callahan [@ChescoWx] questions Roger Coppock as to why he begins his analysis in 1980? Obviously, this is complete and utter nonsense. That's when the first satellites carrying MSUs were launched into orbit. But the implication is this is a cherrypicked start date and that the warming trend is amplified because it starts at a cool period. GASLIGHT CITY!

The 1980s were a very warm decade overall [read the article I posted above, and THINK!!!!] and the 1990s were considered to be the warmest decade on record - and by a fair margin. Many so-called experts insisted the 1990s and early 2000s were the peak or zenith of a long-term, but cyclical, warming trend, and that temperatures thereafter would fall. In fact, temperatures have risen at a greater rate than ever before since 2010. Not only have these so-called experts been wrong, they have been DEAD WRONG. 

 

I mean this level of gaslighting is nothing short of incredible. Do these people realize some of us were living in this era? It was almost uncontested on both sides of the so-called debate that the 1980s and 1990s were unusually warm. The debate was largely centered on the extent to which that was attributable to the greenhouse effect, or to natural and cyclical changes.

A secondary corollary was the degree to which the warming was attributable to other, non-large scale changes, such us urbanization and the expansion of urban heat islands. Related to that, there was some "debate" as to whether - and by how much - temperatures in that era exceeded temperatures in another similar warm period from the 1930s to the early/mid 1950s. But even that facet of the so-called debate took for granted the fact that the 1980s and 1990s was a warm period, simply questioning the extent to which it differed [or exceeded] earlier warm periods. The reality is these satellite records begin right at the beginning of a very warm period, and this was understood and accepted by all (or nearly all) contemporaneous experts regardless of which side of the so-called "debate" they were on. This idea that the 1980s and 1990s were a cold period is a modern invention.

Related to this people also always say what was the climate like before 1880 or 1850, etc.? Have these imbeciles never heard of the Little Ice Age? Pretty much everyone accepts the existence of the LIA, regardless of their position on AGW. The instrumental temperature largely begins at a time when temperatures had warmed some - or at least were beginning to warm - coming out of the LIA. It's very likely there's nothing close to this back to 1300 [start of the LIA].

[donsutherland1]

4 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

I mean this level of gaslighting is nothing short of incredible. Do these people realize some of us were living in this era? It was almost uncontested on both sides of the so-called debate that the 1980s and 1990s were unusually warm. The debate was largely centered on the extent to which that was attributable to the greenhouse effect, or to natural and cyclical changes.

A secondary corollary was the degree to which the warming was attributable to other, non-large scale changes, such us urbanization and the expansion of urban heat islands. Related to that, there was some "debate" as to whether - and by how much - temperatures in that era exceeded temperatures in another similar warm period from the 1930s to the early/mid 1950s. But even that facet of the so-called debate took for granted the fact that the 1980s and 1990s was a warm period, simply questioning the extent to which it differed [or exceeded] earlier warm periods. The reality is these satellite records begin right at the beginning of a very warm period, and this was understood and accepted by all (or nearly all) contemporaneous experts regardless of which side of the so-called "debate" they were on. This idea that the 1980s and 1990s were a cold period is a modern invention.

Related to this people also always say what was the climate like before 1880 or 1850, etc.? Have these imbeciles never heard of the Little Ice Age? Pretty much everyone accepts the existence of the LIA, regardless of their position on AGW. The instrumental temperature largely begins at a time when temperatures had warmed some - or at least were beginning to warm - coming out of the LIA. It's very likely there's nothing close to this back to 1300 [start of the LIA].

The recent heat has created problems for some. Now, some are even trying to "disappear" what happened in Phoenix.

The above post is misguided:

1. The climate record used for analyzing U.S. and global temperature records utilizes statistical homogenization that eliminates distortions created from Time of Observation Bias, the Urban Heat Island (UHI) Effect, etc. Yet, some who deny climate change e.g., Tony Heller, insist that only raw data should be used.

2. Because homogenization removes the distortions, removing urban sites would have, at best, a negligible impact on the climate record.

3. Warming has been occurring in rural and urban areas alike. Phoenix was not unique in experiencing the unprecedented autumn heatwave that stretched from through the last week of September and through the first week of October. Oceans and the Arctic have also been warming. UHI does not explain global temperature trends.

P.S. Notice that despite mention of 'back of envelope calculation," no calculations were provided. The statement is nothing more than a reaction to the high-profile heat event while ignoring that distortions are removed from the climate record.

[ChescoWx]

18 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Here is an example. Paul Callahan [@ChescoWx] questions Roger Coppock as to why he begins his analysis in 1980? Obviously, this is complete and utter nonsense. That's when the first satellites carrying MSUs were launched into orbit. But the implication is this is a cherrypicked start date and that the warming trend is amplified because it starts at a cool period. GASLIGHT CITY!

The 1980s were a very warm decade overall [read the article I posted above, and THINK!!!!] and the 1990s were considered to be the warmest decade on record - and by a fair margin. Many so-called experts insisted the 1990s and early 2000s were the peak or zenith of a long-term, but cyclical, warming trend, and that temperatures thereafter would fall. In fact, temperatures have risen at a greater rate than ever before since 2010. Not only have these so-called experts been wrong, they have been DEAD WRONG. 

 

 

The point of course that data starts at the end of the coldest decade on record....there was nowhere to go but up. This cherry picking simply picks up on the current cyclical warming cycle. Rinse and repeat!

[chubbs]

6 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

The point of course that data starts at the end of the coldest decade on record....there was nowhere to go but up. This cherry picking simply picks up on the current cyclical warming cycle. Rinse and repeat!

I didn't see any evidence that the 1980s were the coolest data locally in Chester County. Quite the contrary, the raw data clearly showed 3-4F warming vs 100+ years ago.  You need to ignore stations moves and other monitoring network changes to conclude that there is no warming in Chester County.  A clear case of cherry picking on your part.

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

I didn't see any evidence that the 1980s were the coolest data locally in Chester County. Quite the contrary, the raw data clearly showed 3-4F warming vs 100+ years ago.  You need to ignore stations moves and other monitoring network changes to conclude that there is no warming in Chester County.  A clear case of cherry picking on your part.

The 1980's were the 3rd coldest decade in the period of record.....so nowhere to go but up - clear cherry picking on Roger's part!

The great news is we can always go to real actual data (below) that highlights there has of course in fact NOT been 3 degrees of warming in the last 100 years here in Chester County PA - well unless we make the "required chilling adjustments" to the older "faulty" data to better support the warming story!!

[donsutherland1]

3 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

The point of course that data starts at the end of the coldest decade on record....there was nowhere to go but up. This cherry picking simply picks up on the current cyclical warming cycle. Rinse and repeat!

From reading Roger's response and the initial post (Maue's post) to which he responded, I don't believe Roger was seeking to cherrypick. He was suggesting that the ongoing warming can be seen in many lines of evidence, including lower troposphere satellite observations. The satellite record he highlighted only goes back to 1980.

On a separate note, Maue knows that NOAA homogenization of data removes the urban heat island effect, as he has dealt with the data in creating weather and climate maps. The trends in the adjusted data closely resemble those found in the USCRN network. Thus, there is no basis to his "calculation" that removing such cities as Phoenix from the climate record would have a material impact on the observed warming in the climate record. His comment is puzzling given his knowledge of the datasets and work with them.

[ChescoWx]

13 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

From reading Roger's response and the initial post (Maue's post) to which he responded, I don't believe Roger was seeking to cherrypick. He was suggesting that the ongoing warming can be seen in many lines of evidence, including lower troposphere satellite observations. The satellite record he highlighted only goes back to 1980.

On a separate note, Maue knows that NOAA homogenization of data removes the urban heat island effect, as he has dealt with the data in creating weather and climate maps. The trends in the adjusted data closely resemble those found in the USCRN network. Thus, there is no basis to his "calculation" that removing such cities as Phoenix from the climate record would have a material impact on the observed warming in the climate record. His comment is puzzling given his knowledge of the datasets and work with them.

Don - can you show me by year or decade how many degrees NOAA has reduced the average temperature to remove the UHI effect at the PHL Airport?

[bdgwx]

I'll remind readers here that ideally we wouldn't remove the UHI effect because it is a real effect. Cities and the land area that they represent really are warmer and really do contribute, albeit only a small amount, to the increase in the global average temperature (GAT). Any removal of the UHI necessarily makes the trend in the GAT lower than it actually is. 

Ryan Maue's tweet is absurd. Urban areas account for about 3% (at most) of the land area of Earth. Even if you ignore the actual temperature in this 3% portion and instead infill those areas using Kriging or some other local regression technique It's only going to reduce the GAT by a few hundredths of degree C and be biased too low. And keep in mind that the UHI is an anthropogenic source of global warming anyway. If he wants to remove anthropogenic factors from the GAT to make the GAT appear lower than it actually is then he should go all in and remove all anthropogenic factors and not just the UHI effect. 

[chubbs]

7 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

The 1980's were the 3rd coldest decade in the period of record.....so nowhere to go but up - clear cherry picking on Roger's part!

The great news is we can always go to real actual data (below) that highlights there has of course in fact NOT been 3 degrees of warming in the last 100 years here in Chester County PA - well unless we make the "required chilling adjustments" to the older "faulty" data to better support the warming story!!

The 1980s drop to 7'th coldest at Coatesville and 10'th coldest at West Chester after the moves from town to more rural locations are are accounted for. (Coatesville in 1946/47 and West Chester 1970).

Below is a graphic that summarizes the network you are using. A capital X denotes a full decade. Small x partial. Town or Human disturbance is judged by looking at a photo of the station or address. The stations are ordered from low elevation to high. Elevation increases as you move north and west in the county, generally to cooler locations. The station changes are massive with time and work in the direction of chilling the network. Completely unsuitable for detecting climate trends. Downright misleading.

 

 

[donsutherland1]

4 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Don - can you show me by year or decade how many degrees NOAA has reduced the average temperature to remove the UHI effect at the PHL Airport?

I don’t have access to the algorithms where the discontinuities are removed for purposes of the national climate record.

[ChescoWx]

4 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

From reading Roger's response and the initial post (Maue's post) to which he responded, I don't believe Roger was seeking to cherrypick. He was suggesting that the ongoing warming can be seen in many lines of evidence, including lower troposphere satellite observations. The satellite record he highlighted only goes back to 1980.

On a separate note, Maue knows that NOAA homogenization of data removes the urban heat island effect, as he has dealt with the data in creating weather and climate maps. The trends in the adjusted data closely resemble those found in the USCRN network. Thus, there is no basis to his "calculation" that removing such cities as Phoenix from the climate record would have a material impact on the observed warming in the climate record. His comment is puzzling given his knowledge of the datasets and work with them.

 

12 minutes ago, chubbs said:

The 1980s drop to 7'th coldest at Coatesville and 10'th coldest at West Chester after the moves from town to more rural locations are are accounted for. (Coatesville in 1946/47 and West Chester 1970).

Below is a graphic that summarizes the network you are using. A capital X denotes a full decade. Small x partial. Town or Human disturbance is judged by looking at a photo of the station or address. The stations are ordered from low elevation to high. Elevation increases as you move north and west in the county, generally to cooler locations. The station changes are massive with time and work in the direction of chilling the network. Completely unsuitable for detecting climate trends. Downright misleading.

 

 

Sorry Charlie some of those higher locales are in the South.....not North. Facts over post hoc adjustments FTW

[chubbs]

On 10/16/2024 at 4:17 PM, ChescoWx said:

 

Sorry Charlie some of those higher locales are in the South.....not North. Facts over post hoc adjustments FTW

Of the stations over 550' only one is in Southern Chester County: West Grove (added in 2014) located at the top of the SECCRA landfill, well above the natural terrain. Another example of how the newer stations are different than the older COOPs. Glad you didn't find any problems with the chart. We know that the town-->rural changes are important because Coatesville and West Chester both warmed 2F when they were moved small distances from towns to more rural sites.

 

 

[ChescoWx]

3 hours ago, chubbs said:

Of the stations over 550' only one is in Southern Chester County: West Grove (added in 2014) located at the top of the SECCRA landfill, well above the natural terrain. Another example of how the newer stations are different than the older COOPs. Glad you didn't find any problems with the chart. We know that the town-->rural changes are important because Coatesville and West Chester both warmed 2F when they were moved small distances from towns to more rural sites.

 

 

Chart is useless as it is a pure non-scientific chart presented by Charlie with zero factual evidence!!  The minute Charlie mentions "Town or Human disturbance is judged by looking at a photo of the station or address" we all knew it was fake science! They of course did not warm because of any minor move - they simply warmed and cooled when they did based on the actual NWS Cooperative observations and our natural cyclical climate change!! Let's chill that data based on photos - great science there!! LOL

[ChescoWx]

Scientists Find No Change in Global Warming Rate Since 1970 Despite “Hottest Year Ever” in 2023

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/10/18/scientists-find-no-change-in-global-warming-rate-since-1970-despite-hottest-year-ever-in-2023/

[TheClimateChanger]

@ChescoWx Here is what NCEI shows for "Filthadelphia."

Here is the graph based on actual data:

 

[TheClimateChanger]

@ChescoWx Red means actual is WARMER than NCEI, and blue means actual is COOLER than NCEI. White means no change. NCEI does not have a value for 1945 or 1959.

 

[TheClimateChanger]

So what we can see is relative to the actual observations, NCEI adjustments generally slightly cooled the 1940s and 1950s. However, beginning in the late 1950s and continuing through the mid 1960s, there is a period where NCEI substantially warmed the actual observations. Thereafter [and continuing through the late 1970s], NCEI adjustments favored a small cooling. In the early 1980s, NCEI adjustments were a general warming of the actual observations. From the mid 1980s through the mid 1990s, there was a significant cooling adjustment.

NOTE: This adjustment from 1985-1995 appears to be related to the defective HO-83 hygrothermometer, which produced spuriously high readings in that era at first-order sites. I don't think there's any express adjustment for the instrument, but rather it's adjusted through comparison with other observations.

Following the installation of the ASOS in 1996, adjustments have generally been modest with either no change to the data or a small warming adjustment applied.

The overall effect of adjustments on the trendline at PHL is small, although it does slightly increase the trend from .441F/decade to .489F/decade.

[TheClimateChanger]

6 hours ago, chubbs said:

Of the stations over 550' only one is in Southern Chester County: West Grove (added in 2014) located at the top of the SECCRA landfill, well above the natural terrain. Another example of how the newer stations are different than the older COOPs. Glad you didn't find any problems with the chart. We know that the town-->rural changes are important because Coatesville and West Chester both warmed 2F when they were moved small distances from towns to more rural sites.

 

 

Wow - why would they install a weather station on a landfill? 

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Scientists Find No Change in Global Warming Rate Since 1970 Despite “Hottest Year Ever” in 2023

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/10/18/scientists-find-no-change-in-global-warming-rate-since-1970-despite-hottest-year-ever-in-2023/

Three points:

1. No change in warming is not the same thing as no warming

2. On the GISS dataset, there has been a modest increase in the rate of warming in recent decades

3. The climate story remains a narrative of unrelenting, steady warming that is in line with the rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases

Aside from the overall trend, there can be significant year-to-year fluctuations in the overall global temperature on account of internal variability e.g., ENSO, and changes in non-greenhouse gas forcings (e.g., volcanic activity).

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, TheClimateChanger said:

@ChescoWx Here is what NCEI shows for "Filthadelphia."

Here is the graph based on actual data:

 

LOL!!!! Same graph for the long running and warmest Chester County PA NWS COOP station for the same dates - just 25 miles west of the Philly heat island...can you say UHI??? So Philly increased 4 degrees and Phoenixville average temp 1940's 54.8 F vs 2010's 55.0 F or a whopping 0.2 degrees of warming OMG!!! Where is that old UHI adjustment when you need it? Fake climate data at it's best for Philadelphia!! Just ridiculous difference with that heat island that is Philly!!

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

LOL!!!! Same graph for the long running and warmest Chester County PA NWS COOP station for the same dates - just 25 miles west of the Philly heat island...can you say UHI??? So Philly increased 4 degrees and Phoenixville average temp 1940's 54.8 F vs 2010's 55.0 F or a whopping 0.2 degrees of warming OMG!!! Where is that old UHI adjustment when you need it? Fake climate data at it's best for Philadelphia!! Just ridiculous difference with that heat island that is Philly!!

As per prior discussions, the 1915-1948 period at Phoenixville is not reliable. Temperatures were overstated. Even after 1950, Phoenixville has an often absurd number of missing temperatures.

[chubbs]

5 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Chart is useless as it is a pure non-scientific chart presented by Charlie with zero factual evidence!!  The minute Charlie mentions "Town or Human disturbance is judged by looking at a photo of the station or address" we all knew it was fake science! They of course did not warm because of any minor move - they simply warmed and cooled when they did based on the actual NWS Cooperative observations and our natural cyclical climate change!! Let's chill that data based on photos - great science there!! LOL

Glad you think I am not scientific. Puts me in good company with scientists and other experts. I find the site photos useful. In the case of Coatesville and West Chester: the photos, the NCDC site information, and the "actual" raw temperature data from multiple sites all paint a consistent picture. The stations moved from town-->rural and the temperatures cooled at the time of the move. We been discussing this for a long time and you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. Happy to correct the chart though if you have better information.

[ChescoWx]

Just now, chubbs said:

Glad you think I am not scientific. Puts me in good company with scientists and other experts. I find the site photos useful. In the case of Coatesville and West Chester: the photos, the NCDC site information, and the "actual" raw temperature data from multiple sites all paint a consistent picture. The stations moved from town-->rural and the temperatures cooled at the time of the move. We been discussing this for a long time and you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. Happy to correct the chart though if you have better information.

And of course Charlie you have produced consistently zero true factual data to adjust temperatures by 2 degrees or more so often in history.....well unless we go by your photo science - LOL!!!!

[ChescoWx]

31 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

As per prior discussions, the 1915-1948 period at Phoenixville is not reliable. Temperatures were overstated. Even after 1950, Phoenixville has an often absurd number of missing temperatures.

Hi Don, Tell me which years have an "absurd" number of missing temps since 1941 and i will throw them out and just compare apples to apples months and years with complete data.

[ChescoWx]

57 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

As per prior discussions, the 1915-1948 period at Phoenixville is not reliable. Temperatures were overstated. Even after 1950, Phoenixville has an often absurd number of missing temperatures.

Don are you referencing the below from NOAA for missing data?

You can see that despite on NOAA (1st image) it listed as missing it actually was reported in this case for December 2000 see the Climatolological Data report for PA for December 2000 (2nd image) and I do have that data in the above data set even though NOAA has missed it.

[donsutherland1]

2 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Don are you referencing the below from NOAA for missing data?

If you are you can see that despite on NOAA it listed as missing it actually was reported in this case for December 2000 see the Climatolological Data report for PA for December 2000 and I do have that data in the above data set even though NOAA has missed it.

1992 was missing 185 days, 1994 was missing 154 days, etc. 

[chubbs]

31 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

And of course Charlie you have produced consistently zero true factual data to adjust temperatures by 2 degrees or more so often in history.....well unless we go by your photo science - LOL!!!!

Whether you can accept/understand or not, the raw temperature and other data is clear. When the stations moved, they cooled by roughly 2F relative to nearby stations. We know the locations of the stations before and after the moves. We know when the moves occurred. We know the temperatures at all the local stations. The photos are just the icing on the cake.

[bdgwx]

7 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Scientists Find No Change in Global Warming Rate Since 1970 Despite “Hottest Year Ever” in 2023

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/10/18/scientists-find-no-change-in-global-warming-rate-since-1970-despite-hottest-year-ever-in-2023/

The publication cited is [Beaulieu et al. 2024]. They absolutely do NOT say they found no change in the global warming rate since 1970. What they said is that a detectable surge does not meet the statistical significance test using their changepoint modeling methodology...yet. 

They also outline various warming rates and years at which the warming rate would qualify as a surge with statistical significance.

"To detect a warming surge starting in 2010 and ending in 2024, the trend needs to have changed by 84% (equivalent to a trend of 0.034 ∘C/year from 2010–2024). If the time series extends to 2030, the surge would need to change by at least 58% (a magnitude of 0.028 ∘C/year from 2010–2030) to be detectable. If the time series is further extended to 2040, a surge of at least a 39% change (corresponding to a magnitude of 0.026 ∘C/year from 2010–2040) could be detectable."

It might be interesting to note that UAH, which the authors did not consider, reports a warming rate of +0.04 C/year from 2010/01 through 2024/10. So the one remaining dataset dataset that many contrarians are still willing to consider does suggest a surge in the warming rate.  

 

[ChescoWx]

17 hours ago, chubbs said:

Whether you can accept/understand or not, the raw temperature and other data is clear. When the stations moved, they cooled by roughly 2F relative to nearby stations. We know the locations of the stations before and after the moves. We know when the moves occurred. We know the temperatures at all the local stations. The photos are just the icing on the cake.

The data above does not support the 2 or 3 degree adjustments in any way! Those charts simply prove they warmed and cooled not because of moves but because all the local stations had the same movements - you are also missing several other nearby stations during those 2 time frames above. I am working on some superior analysis focusing just on that 1941 to 1975 period that clearly shows the weakness of these adjustments. I do though love your picture story!! LOL!!!!